Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

Is that true? Deviantart owns all that is uploaded their site? I don't remember reading that. Can you spare me a link? I couldn't really find it on their faqs.

I may or may not have misread it when I made my account. The following is from their Terms of Service (you'd get to the link by attempting to make a new account, at the bottom). Time to take a shot at being a lawyer.

The first segment I read over makes me think that you're right, and they either changed something or I misread it:

Quote:

4. Copyright

deviantART is, unless otherwise stated, the owner of all copyright and data rights in the Service and its contents. Individuals who have posted works to deviantART are either the copyright owners of the component parts of that work or are posting the work under license from a copyright owner or his or her agent or otherwise as permitted by law. You may not reproduce, distribute, publicly display or perform, or prepare derivative works based on any of the Content including any such works without the express, written consent of deviantART or the appropriate owner of copyright in such works. deviantART does not claim ownership rights in your works or other materials posted by you to deviantART (Your Content). You agree not to distribute any part of the Service other than Your Content in any medium other than as permitted in these Terms of Service or by use of functions on the Service provided by us. You agree not to alter or modify any part of the Service unless expressly permitted to do so by us or by use of functions on the Service provided by us.

I've bolded what I feel are the important parts. If this was unchanged, it's likely that I read the first sentence and interpreted it to mean that they are the owner of all copyright and data within its service - that is, since you're putting works onto their service, they own it. However, the sentence buried further into the paragraph that I bolded specifically states that they do not claim ownership of works published through their service. That'd make me wrong. However...

Quote:

16. Copyright in Your Content

deviantART does not claim ownership rights in Your Content. For the sole purpose of enabling us to make your Content available through the Service, you grant to deviantART a non-exclusive, royalty-free license to reproduce, distribute, re-format, store, prepare derivative works based on, and publicly display and perform Your Content. Please note that when you upload Content, third parties will be able to copy, distribute and display your Content using readily available tools on their computers for this purpose although other than by linking to your Content on deviantART any use by a third party of your Content could violate paragraph 4 of these Terms and Conditions unless the third party receives permission from you by license.

Once again they don't claim ownership, but I've underlined another part that may have given me a bad impression. I'd interpret that to mean that reproduction, distribution, storing, etc. as simply being part of how the internet works, and that they're just clarifying that there in legal speak. However, the preparation of derivative works based off of your own artwork doesn't jive well with me, even though I've never heard of that happening or any artist becoming upset over it.

I don't really remember if there was an ownership issue or if it was that idea of the derivative works that bothered me - all that I remember is that I was OK with it as a 3D modeler since, as I said, the important part of 3D works is less about a single render and more about your models, neither of which DeviantArt would own or possess by simply uploading a render. However, it's a bit different with photographs.

It's probably really a non-issue and I don't mean to make it out to be greater than it is. Those are just my interpretations of their ToS as well; I could be completely off.

Ah ha, Cause I don't think they have their term of service other than when you are registering cause I couldn't really find it. I didn't search too hard, but you know. I was about to go and delete all of my deviantart submission too, lol ^_^

However, the preparation of derivative works based off of your own artwork doesn't jive well with me, even though I've never heard of that happening or any artist becoming upset over it.

I know it sounds bad, but I think it's also a necessary aspect of displaying your works on the web. Take a typical gallery page, for instance. Since that's a compilation of various works, I believe it qualifies as a derivative work. So without granting this right, someone posting to Deviantart could say it's okay to show my pictures individually but not in a gallery format.

Of course, it does also grant Deviantart the right to use their members' works to create and sell holiday greeting cards or trademarked T-shirts without sharing any profits. I'd be concerned if they did that sort of thing, but I doubt that actually happens.

I know it sounds bad, but I think it's also a necessary aspect of displaying your works on the web. Take a typical gallery page, for instance. Since that's a compilation of various works, I believe it qualifies as a derivative work. So without granting this right, someone posting to Deviantart could say it's okay to show my pictures individually but not in a gallery format.

Of course, it does also grant Deviantart the right to use their members' works to create and sell holiday greeting cards or trademarked T-shirts without sharing any profits. I'd be concerned if they did that sort of thing, but I doubt that actually happens.

I've yet to see Deviantart do this, since all of their prints is a service that they do and the users sell their own works. *drool* 'I've seen some really good prints I would love to buy, but some of them reaches around 90$ USD and that is quite expensive.

In Java, why is it that you can initialize a variable of type byte or short with an integer literal (as long as you're within the range of allowed number for that data type) but you can't initialize a variable of type float with a floating-point literal without the suffix "f" or casting the literal as a float, even if it's just 0.0?

In Java, why is it that you can initialize a variable of type byte or short with an integer literal (as long as you're within the range of allowed number for that data type) but you can't initialize a variable of type float with a floating-point literal without the suffix "f" or casting the literal as a float, even if it's just 0.0?

EDIT 1: lol, i might be reading something incorrectly.

EDIT 2: ah, i see, never mind.

EDIT 3: wait, i still don't get it.

Could be a problem of the compiler. Maybe the numeric value is interpreted as double, and is automatically typecasted to float in the process if you miss the suffix f. The suffix interpretes the value as float and there is no typecast needed then.
Though, every decent compiler should be able to interpret it as float if it is meant to initialize a float variable.

@Jinto Lin: Well there is some auto/invisible typecasting done. (pass a int to a method accepting only float and double for example) Personally I don't consider it a good thing since it can be cause for precision errors. Obviously auto-casting double to float would be a huge hole in the language.

@monstert: float isn't a primary primitive. Basically every floating point number is a double! You can have floats if you really need them (development for mobile devices etc), but Java presumes double is your main preference. It's no compiler deficiency, it's there by design. In 99.99% of cases where you would require floating point precision for practical use double would always make more sense.

@monstert: float isn't a primary primitive. Basically every floating point number is a double! You can have floats if you really need them (development for mobile devices etc), but Java presumes double is your main preference. It's no compiler deficiency, it's there by design. In 99.99% of cases where you would require floating point precision for practical use double would always make more sense.

If that's the case, going back to my example, what about those integer literals that you can pass to a byte or short variable with no problem? Shouldn't there be error as well since the literal is supposed to be int?

Reach the widest possible audience with Adobe® Encore® CS3 software, now included with Adobe Premiere® Pro CS3. With unmatched Adobe Photoshop® software integration and a flexible and intelligent workflow, Encore CS3 is packed with a rich set of creative tools for DVD and Blu-ray Disc authoring and SWF export to the web. Available for both Intel® based Mac and Windows® systems, Encore CS3 is the right choice for easy production of full-featured, menu-driven DVD and Blu-ray projects, on disc and on the web.

* Create powerful DVDs, Blu-ray Discs, and SWF files for the web with ease
* Work smarter with an intelligent workflow
* Design with total freedom and control

__________________

“This be the realest shit I ever wrote.” ~Tupac
So very dead right now.. but still breathing thank you.

Sigh .. with a little website called Google .. I keyed in adobe encore and PRESTO!

Gosh, that Google site must be amazing to know all about Adobe Encore! It seems to know nearly everything about everything!

I've got a question! If google knows almost everything, then why don't people just use google for their random informational needs before asking here? I did try googling for that information, but it couldn't tell me.

Edit: Never mind. I rephrased my search terms and google provided an answer. It seems that google really does know everything after all.

__________________

There's not that fine a line between willing suspension of disbelief and something just being stupid.

Last edited by NoSanninWa; 2008-01-21 at 05:56.
Reason: found an answer

I've got a question! If google knows almost everything, then why don't people just use google for their random informational needs before asking here? I did try googling for that information, but it couldn't tell me.

Edit: Never mind. I rephrased my search terms and google provided an answer. It seems that google really does know everything after all.

I know the question was somewhat sarcastic, but there are two reasons. One is listed on the page you linked to, stating that people prefer the "human touch." The other reason was noted by a professor teaching some computer science class. He noted that the younger generations have the most information available to them and some of the best skills to sort through it, but they show incredibly low patience when trying to find the information they need/are looking for. Even though it may take more time for a response to be given, it is certainly easier for a person to fire off a question and have someone else get them the answer - either because they know it or because they've gone through the effort (no matter how little) of wading through the information and finding the best result.

I know the question was somewhat sarcastic, but there are two reasons. One is listed on the page you linked to, stating that people prefer the "human touch." The other reason was noted by a professor teaching some computer science class. He noted that the younger generations have the most information available to them and some of the best skills to sort through it, but they show incredibly low patience when trying to find the information they need/are looking for. Even though it may take more time for a response to be given, it is certainly easier for a person to fire off a question and have someone else get them the answer - either because they know it or because they've gone through the effort (no matter how little) of wading through the information and finding the best result.

Yes and no. The only reason I post my question here, is because I do not have any key words I can use to look up what i'm looking for here, everything else is true. And I probably believe that's what other users opinion are too.

Yes and no. The only reason I post my question here, is because I do not have any key words I can use to look up what i'm looking for here, everything else is true. And I probably believe that's what other users opinion are too.

Well in those cases I think we consider the questions to be a bit more legit - it's something that would perhaps require specialized knowledge, even to get the answer through Google. NSW was making a remark with regard to questions that are a bit "easier" in nature. Specifically, someone asked what Adobe Encore was. If you enter that into Google, the first hit that comes up is Adobe's Encore website, detailing the product features. If I didn't know what the Statue of Liberty was (as an example) I could easily enter those terms verbatim into Google and get the answer.

Questions that are a bit more difficult could include figuring out the origins of an internet meme, or finding out something with a long information trail - they take a lot of work, and it's likely that someone already knows the answer. Your questions, as I mentioned, require a special knowledge to figure out where to even begin an information search (if the information even exists), and thus require someone's assistance. I don't think anyone's too frustrated when they hear questions such as those.

It's not that simple Ledgem. Not to try and justify the Adobe Encore question but even knowing exact key words may prove futile to do a simple google search. There are many reasons for this, among which..

Disambiguation - say you're searching for PSP, how do you tell Google the difference between it and all the other stuff abbreviated to PSP.

Ambiguity in results - say I found something that sounds right but I'm not 100% sure what I'm really looking for here so how do I tell the authenticity of what I got.

Depth of field - it's true that Google pretty much has something for everything, but for some things you have to be so neck deep into the terminology/knowledge to be able to effectively search for it or otherwise Googling simply becomes a test to futility.

You think you need to type keyword1 and keyhole1 (good keywords) but among them you also think you need to type errorkeyword1 and errorkeyword2 which throw your results to the smelly pits of wonderland.